Plain English Breakdown
The official text contains conflicting phrasing ('reached cost parity with' vs. 'would be cost effective'), suggesting an amendment or editing error in the source provided; both concepts are treated as a single requirement here.
AB-1704: Checking Costs Before New Building Material Rules Start
This law requires the State Air Resources Board to check if low-carbon building materials are cost-effective compared to standard ones before starting new rules, and it allows a delay of up to 10 years if they are not.
What This Bill Does
- Requires the board to determine if using lower embodied carbon materials is cost-effective during their first two years of use compared to conventional building materials before implementing existing provisions.
- Allows the board to delay or suspend implementation of those provisions for at least 5 years but no more than 10 years total if low-carbon options are not found to be cost-effective.
Who It Names or Affects
- The State Air Resources Board
Terms To Know
- Embodied carbon
- Greenhouse gas emissions associated with building materials, as referenced in the bill's title and context.
- Cost parity or cost-effective
- A comparison of costs between lower embodied carbon materials and conventional building materials during their first two years of use.
Limits and Unknowns
- The bill does not define the specific method for calculating whether materials are 'cost effective' or have reached 'cost parity'.
- It is unknown if the board will determine that costs meet the requirement, which would trigger a delay.
- The text refers to delaying implementation of provisions but does not specify exactly when those original deadlines were set.